A sorry saga

The caricature of politicians as robotic careerists corrodes public life. All too often, however, both biography and style make that an easy picture to paint. Those few who can credibly claim to be something more than yes-men or -women thus have real value. Peter Hain is one. As a young man he agitated against apartheid to the point where the South African authorities tried to frame him for a robbery. As a minister he has departed from the Blair-Brown script, raising taboo concerns about the runaway rich.

But if Mr Hain dispels one damaging view about his trade, the saga of his undeclared donations has reached a point where it risks reinforcing the more poisonous perception that politics is sleazy. As the Guardian revealed yesterday, undeclared cash given to his campaign for Labour's deputy leadership totalled £103,155. That is more than most candidates spent over the whole contest. It is also 100 times more than the campaign cheque that almost did for Labour's Scottish leader, Wendy Alexander, in December. Unlike Ms Alexander, Mr Hain did not take cash from anyone barred from donating. But that does not mean he is in the clear.

The law requires all donations to be registered with the Electoral Commission. The Hain campaign seemed aware of this, registering all money up until May - only later payments were left undeclared. The missing money came to light only after Labour's fundraiser, then caught up in a separate sleaze row, reminded Mr Hain about his obligations. A month on, the commission this week finally received the full records. Yesterday, in a further twist, the parliamentary commissioner for standards launched an inquiry after realising Mr Hain had also failed to record his donations in the register of members' interests. With the full records already set to become public, there is no suggestion of a further cover-up, but the move is important because the parliamentary watchdog has the power to suspend Mr Hain from the Commons - a move that would surely spell the end of his ministerial career.

Mr Hain pleads that the saga arose because his crucial work in Northern Ireland left little time for worrying about financial minutiae. Maybe so. But when his current role involves overseeing the work and pensions budget of £138bn a year, that attitude is a concern. More worrying still is his admission that large donations were funnelled through a shell thinktank, which has done precious little thinking. That raises the question of whether he accepted money offered on condition that it would stay secret, something no minister should ever do. Whatever the truth, the parliamentary watchdog must get to the bottom of it. The government will not look clean until this sorry mess is cleared up.